work environment and dynamic capability: empirical views...

9734

ISSN 2286-4822

www.euacademic.org

EUROPEAN ACADEMIC RESEARCH

Vol. II, Issue 7/ October 2014

Impact Factor: 3.1 (UIF)

DRJI Value: 5.9 (B+)

Work Environment and Dynamic Capability:

Empirical Views of Library and Information

Professionals

T. PATTABHIRAMAN

Assistant Librarian

B.S. Abdur Rahman University

Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

S. GOPALAKRISHNAN

Asst. University Librarian (Retd.)

Anna University, Chennai

Tamil Nadu, India

D. GNANASEKARAN

Librarian

Anand Institute of Higher Technology

Tamil Nadu, India

DR. S. GOPALAKRISHNAN

Head-Resource Centre

National Institute of Fashion Technology

Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

Abstract:

In the global competitive environment every professionals has

to exhibit their capabilities in the organization in order to sustain in

the professional circle. A dynamic capability is a learned and stable

pattern of collective activity through which the organization

systematically generates and modifies its operating routines in pursuit

of improved effectiveness. In general, a dynamic managerial capability

is a one form of an effective utilization of dynamic capabilities. The

use of dynamic capability in library and information field is in infancy

stage. Therefore in this study an attempt has been made to evaluate the

dynamic capability among LIS professionals. In Tamil Nadu, as on

T. Pattabhiraman, S. Gopalakrishnan, D. Gnanasekaran, S. Gopalakrishnan- Work

Environment and Dynamic Capability: Empirical Views of Library and

Information Professionals

EUROPEAN ACADEMIC RESEARCH - Vol. II, Issue 7 / October 2014

9735

date, there exist 20 State Universities, 32 Deemed Universities and 2

Central Universities. Out of 540 questionnaire distributed, 318 were

responded and the response rate is 70.37%. The dynamic capability

has association with work environment capability and views on work

environment. These two parameters were taken up for the study.

“materials and equipment”, “Information and Communication” and

“Cooperation” were the first three predominant variables in showing

the work environment capability. The least preferences were given to

“Superior care”; “Opinion and ideas” and “recognition”. The variables

are grouped into four components using factor analysis. The four

components thus extracted are named as “Appreciation”, “Regulate”,

“Collaborator” and “Accommodative”. In the case of views on work

environment, the respondents give preference for opportunity and learn

& grow.

Key words: Dynamic capability, work environment, work

environment capabilities, factor analysis, soft skills.

Introduction

In the global competitive environment every professionals has

to exhibit their capabilities in the organization in order to

sustain in the professional circle. In exhibiting the capabilities

the organizational climate and work environment plays a vital

role. If the work environment is soothing to the professionals,

they naturally involve themselves and exhibit their capabilities

in their service. This holds good to the service industries. In

the case of Library and information services the work

environment matters in delivering the services to their

clientele.

Dynamic Capability

Dynamic capabilities are the antecedent organizational and

strategic routines by which managers alter their resource





9736

base—acquire and shed resources, integrate them together, and

recombine them—to generate new value-creating strategies

(Grant, 1996; Pisano, 1994). As such, they are the drivers

behind the creation, evolution, and recombination of other

resources into new sources of competitive advantage

(Henderson and Cockburn, 1994; Teece et al., 1997).

Kogut and Zander (1992) use the term ‘combinative

capabilities’ to describe organizational processes by which firms

synthesize and acquire knowledge resources, and generate new

applications from those resources. Henderson and Cockburn

(1994) similarly use the term ‘architectural competence’ while

Amit and Schoemaker (1993) use ‘capabilities.’

Definitions of Dynamic Capabilities

Few of the definitions of the dynamic capabilities are

The subset of the competences and capabilities that

allow the firm to create new products and processes and

respond to changing market circumstances (Teece &

Pisano (1994)

The firm’s ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure

internal and external competences to address rapidly

changing environments (Teece, Pisano, & Shuen (1997))

The firm’s processes that use resources—specifically the

processes to integrate, reconfigure, gain, and release

resources—to match and even create market change;

dynamic capabilities thus are the organizational and

strategic routines by which firms achieve new resource

configurations as markets emerge, collide, split, evolve,

and die Eisenhardt & Martin (2000)

The ability to sense and then seize opportunities quickly

and proficiently (Teece (2000))

A dynamic capability is a learned and stable pattern of

collective activity through which the organization

systematically generates and modifies its operating





9737

routines in pursuit of improved effectiveness Winter

(2003)

Those (capabilities) that operate to extend, modify, or

create ordinary capabilities (Zahra, Sapienza, &

Davidsson (2006))

The abilities to reconfigure a firm’s resources and

routines in the manner envisioned and deemed

appropriate by its principal decision maker(s) Helfat et

al. (2007)

Therefore it can be inferred that the dynamic capabilities,

can be disaggregated into the capacity (a) to sense and shape

opportunities and threats, (b) to seize opportunities, and (c) to

maintain competitiveness through enhancing, combining,

protecting, and, when necessary, reconfiguring the business

enterprise’s intangible and tangible assets.

Review of Literature

Clark and Fujimoto, (1991) discuss the use of superior product

development skills to achieve competitive advantage in the

automotive industry. Similarly, strategic decision making is a

dynamic capability in which managers pool their various

business, functional, and personal expertise to make the choices

that shape the major strategic moves of the firm ( Eisenhardt,

1989; Fredrickson, 1984; Judge and Miller, 1991). Other

dynamic capabilities focus on reconfiguration of resources

within firms. Transfer processes including routines for

replication and brokering (e.g., Hansen, 1999; Hargadon and

Sutton, 1997; Szulanski, 1996) are used by managers to copy,

transfer, and recombine resources, especially knowledge-based

ones, within the firm. Some dynamic capabilities integrate

resources.





9738

Product development routines by which managers

combine their varied skills and functional backgrounds to

create revenue producing products and services (e.g., Clark and

Fujimoto, 1991; Dougherty, 1992; Helfat and `, 2000) are such a

dynamic capability. Alliance management is considered as

dynamic capability in Relationship management (Anand,

Oriani, and Vassolo, 2010; Kale and Singh, 2007; Schilke and

Goerzen, 2010). In the case of Organizational Structure, the

dynamic capability exhibited in Resource allocation (Coen and

Maritan, 2011). Similarly architectural innovation (Galunic

and Eisenhardt, 2001), diversification (Doving and Gooderham,

2008; Dixon, Meyer, and Day, 2010), new product development

capabilities (Henderson and Clark, 1990; Eisenhardt and

Tabrizi, 1995) few more studies in dynamic capability.

In general, a dynamic managerial capability (Adner and

Helfat, 2003) is a one form of an effective utilization of dynamic

capabilities. The use of dynamic capability in library and

information field is in infancy stage. Therefore in this study an

attempt has been made to evaluate the dynamic capability

among LIS professionals.

Objectives

The objectives of the study are:

1. To improve the dynamic capability by increasing the

capability of the LIS Professionals workforce.

2. To identify the working environment responsibility

among LIS professionals.

3. To identify the clear focus and commitment among

LIS professionals in their work environment.

4. To indicate the LIS professionals that their abilities

are recognized and used.

5. To provide opportunities to LIS professionals for

their multi-skilling by a commitment to the

development of competencies.





9739

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses were formed based on the objectives.

1. There exists willingness in assuming the responsibility

among LIS professionals in their working environment.

2. There is no significant change on competencies in

meeting the challenges among the professionals.

3. LIS Professionals has a clear vision and values in their

work environment.

4. There exists ensured learning among LIS Professionals.

5. There exists adaptability to the work environment

among LIS Professionals.

Scope and Limitations

1. This study covers the professionals working in

University libraries in Tamil Nadu (India)

2. Professionals includes person who poses post graduate

qualification in library and information science and

working in any university in Tamil Nadu (India)

Data Collection

In Tamil Nadu, as on date, there exist 20 State Universities, 32

Deemed Universities and 2 Central Universities. The Number

of information professionals working in these institutions was

not consistent. Therefore 10 questionnaires were distributed

for each of the 54 universities. Therefore total questionnaire

distributed works out to 540. Out of 540 questionnaire

distributed, 318 were responded and the response rate is

70.37%.

Data Analysis

The dynamic capability has association with work environment

capability and views on work environment. These two





9740

parameters were taken up for the study. A well structured

questionnaire was distributed among the library and

information professionals working in Universities – State,

Deemed and Central Universities. Their opinions were obtained

and analyzed using the SPSS Software.

Demographic Data

The demographic details of the respondents are given in Table

1.

Table 1 Demographic Data

S. No. Description Frequency Percent

1

Gender

Male 205 64.5

Female 113 35.5

2 Qualification

UG 36 11.3

PG 124 39.0

M. Phil 146 45.9

Ph. D 12 3.8

3 Designation

Librarian 119 37.4

Asst. Librarian 199 62.6

4 Experience

<5 Yrs 92 28.9

6to10 Yrs 124 39.0

11to15 Yrs 73 23.0

16-20 Yrs 15 4.7

>20 Yrs 14 4.4

5 Type of Institution

Central University 14 4.4

State University 136 42.8

Deemed University 168 52.8

Out of 318 responses received, 205 (64.5%) are male and 113

(35.5%) are female. Based on their qualification the

respondents are divided into 4 groups such as UG (36, 11.3%),

PG (124, 39.0%), M. Phil. (146, 45.9%) and Ph.D. (12, 3.8%).

The data were collected from Librarians and Assistant





9741

Librarians only. There are 119 (37.4%) responses received from

Librarians and 199 (62.6%) are Assistant Librarians.

Work Environment Capability

The work environment capability has been ascertained using

ten variables on a five point scale such as Strongly Disagree,

Disagree, Moderate, Agree and Strongly agree from LIS

professionals working in Universities of Tamil Nadu (India).

The mean and standard deviation were calculated. The ranks

were assigned based on mean and standard deviation. The

same is shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Work Environment Capability

S.

No. Description SD D M A SA Mean Std Rank

W1 material

&equipment

5 5 28 88 192 4.4371 .84106 1

1.6% 1.6% 8.8% 27.7% 60.4%

W2 information &

communication

4 12 28 111 163 4.3113 .87766 2

1.3% 3.8% 8.8% 34.9% 51.3%

W3 recognition 45 18 107 110 38 3.2453 1.17930 10

14.2% 5.7% 33.6% 34.6% 11.9%

W4 benefits 13 0 32 182 91 4.0629 .86783 5

4.1% .0% 10.1% 57.2% 28.6%

W5 cooperative 15 9 26 102 166 4.1667 .91976 3

4.7% 2.8% 8.2% 32.1% 52.2%

W6 encourages

0 22 46 107 143 4.1667 .91976 4

.0% 6.9% 14.5% 33.6% 45.0%

W7 opinions &

ideas

24 24 83 131 56 3.5377 1.09925 9

7.5% 7.5% 26.1% 41.2% 17.6%

W8 feedback &

guidance

18 0 43 178 79 3.9434 .94482 6

5.7% .0% 13.5% 56.0% 24.8%

W9 superior help 17 10 55 158 78 3.8491 1.00276 7

5.3% 3.1% 17.3% 49.7% 24.5%

W10 superior care 25 0 75 171 47 3.6761 .99468 8

7.9% .0% 23.6% 53.8% 14.8%

The mean value ranges between 3.2453 and 4.4371. This

indicates that all the variables thus taken up for the study lies

between moderate and strongly agree. The standard deviation





9742

ranges between 0.84106 and 1.17930 on a five point scale.

There no significant deviation of opinion among the

respondents.

In general “materials and equipment”, “Information and

Communication” and “Cooperation” were the first three

predominant variables in showing the work environment

capability. The least preferences were given to “Superior care”;

“Opinion and ideas” and “recognition”.

The study has further been extended to type of

university such as Central Universities, State Universities and

Deemed Universities. Their opinion on the variables in a five

point scale is shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Work Environment Capability – Type of University

Type of

University Description SD D M A SA

Cen

tral

Un

ivers

itie

s

Material

&equipment 0 .0% 0 .0% 2 14.3% 5 35.7% 7 50.0%

Information &

communication 0 .0% 1 7.1% 2 14.3% 6 42.9% 5 35.7%

Recognition 2 14.3% 1 7.1% 5 35.7% 5 35.7% 1 7.1%

Benefits 2 14.3% 0 .0% 1 7.1% 9 64.3% 2 14.3%

Cooperative 1 7.1% 1 7.1% 0 .0% 3 21.4% 9 64.3%

Encourages 0 .0% 0 .0% 1 7.1% 4 28.6% 9 64.3%

Opinions &

ideas 0 .0% 2 14.3% 2 14.3% 6 42.9% 4 28.6%

Feedback &

guidance 1 7.1% 0 .0% 3 21.4% 8 57.1% 2 14.3%

Superior help 0 .0% 0 .0% 3 21.4% 8 57.1% 3 21.4%

Superior care 3 21.4% 0 .0% 4 28.6% 6 42.9% 1 7.1%

Sta

te U

niv

ers

itie

s

Material

&equipment 3 2.2% 1 .7% 11 8.1% 47 34.6% 74 54.4%

Information &

communication 1 .7% 3 2.2% 10 7.4% 52 38.2% 70 51.5%

Recognition 16 11.8% 8 5.9% 53 39.0% 44 32.4% 15 11.0%

Benefits 4 2.9% 0 .0% 12 8.8% 81 59.6% 39 28.7%

Cooperative 7 5.1% 4 2.9% 12 8.8% 41 30.1% 72 52.9%

Encourages 0 .0% 10 7.4% 22 16.2% 42 30.9% 62 45.6%

Opinions &

ideas 11 8.1% 6 4.4% 31 22.8% 66 48.5% 22 16.2%

Feedback &

guidance 7 5.1% 0 .0% 21 15.4% 71 52.2% 37 27.2%





9743

Superior help 5 3.7% 6 4.4% 24 17.6% 64 47.1% 37 27.2%

Superior care 6 4.4% 0 .0% 35 25.7% 75 55.1% 20 14.7%

Deem

ed

Un

ivers

itie

s

Material

&equipment 2 1.2% 4 2.4% 15 8.9% 36 21.4% 111 66.1%

Information &

communication 3 1.8% 8 4.8% 16 9.5% 53 31.5% 88 52.4%

Recognition 27 16.1% 9 5.4% 49 29.2% 61 36.3% 22 13.1%

Benefits 7 4.2% 0 .0% 19 11.3% 92 54.8% 50 29.8%

Cooperative 7 4.2% 4 2.4% 14 8.3% 58 34.5% 85 50.6%

Encourages 0 .0% 12 7.1% 23 13.7% 61 36.3% 72 42.9%

Opinions &

ideas 13 7.7% 16 9.5% 50 29.8% 59 35.1% 30 17.9%

Feedback &

guidance 10 6.0% 0 .0% 19 11.3% 99 58.9% 40 23.8%

Superior help 12 7.1% 4 2.4% 28 16.7% 86 51.2% 38 22.6%

Superior care 16 9.5% 0 .0% 36 21.4% 90 53.6% 26 15.5%

The respective of central, state and deemed universities more

than 70% of the respondents were accepted either agree or

strongly agree for all the variables.

The mean and standard deviation were calculated for

each type of universities and ranks were assigned based on the

mean and standard deviation. The same is shown in Table 4.

Table 4 Work Environment Capability – Mean, Std., Rank

S.

No Description

Central State Deemed Total

Mean Std. Rank Mean Std. Rank Mean Std. Rank Mean Std. Rank

W1 Material and

equipment 4.36 0.74 2 4.38 0.84 2 4.49 0.85 1 4.44 0.84 1

W2 Information &

communication 4.07 0.92 4 4.38 0.78 1 4.28 0.95 2 4.31 0.88 2

W3 Recognition 3.14 1.17 9 3.25 1.11 10 3.25 1.24 10 3.25 1.18 10

W4 Benefits 3.64 1.22 8 4.11 0.80 5 4.06 0.89 5 4.06 0.87 5

W5 Cooperative 4.29 1.27 3 4.23 1.07 3 4.25 1.00 3 4.24 1.04 3

W6 Encourages 4.57 0.65 1 4.15 0.95 4 4.15 0.91 4 4.17 0.92 4

W7 Opinions &

ideas 3.86 1.03 6 3.60 1.07 9 3.46 1.13 9 3.54 1.10 9

W8 Feedback &

guidance 3.71 0.99 7 3.96 0.95 6 3.95 0.94 6 3.94 0.94 6

W9 Superior care 4.00 0.68 5 3.90 0.98 7 3.80 1.05 7 3.85 1.00 7

W10 Superior help 3.14 1.29 10 3.76 0.86 8 3.65 1.06 8 3.68 0.99 8





9744

The respondents belong to Central Universities prefer

‘encourages’, ‘material and equipment’ and ‘cooperative’ as top

three capabilities in the work environment. In case of the

respondents belonging to the state universities, top three

priorities are given to ‘information and communication’,

‘material and equipment’ and ‘cooperative. The respondents

from deemed universities prefer ‘material and equipment’,

‘information and communication’ and ‘cooperative’ as top three

capabilities. In general, the respondents from the state and

deemed universities have almost common opinion about the

priorities on the capabilities.

Rotated component matrix were calculated for the

variables for identifying the groups and the same is shown in

Table 5.

Table 5 Rotated Component Matrix(a)

S.

No Description

Component

1 2 3 4

W3 Recognition .746

W4 Benefits .839

W1 Material and Equipment .157

W8 Feedback and Guidance .819

W9 Superior help .832

W7 Opinions and Ideas .498

W2 Information and communication .459

W6 Encourages .756

W5 Cooperative .540

W10 Superior care .804

Eigen values 1.752 1.695 1.303 1.226

Cumulative Squared Loadings 17.522 34.467 47.502 59.759

As can be seen from the table 5, the variables are grouped into

four components. Eigen values were calculated for the same

variables. The first four factors have Eigen values greater than

1. “1” was the criterion for retention of a factor, which indicates

that only the first five factors are to be extracted. It can be

seen that the variances were more evenly distributed in the





9745

rotated sum of the squared loading (17.522%, 16.946%, 13.035%

and 12.257% respectively; Cumulative variance ratio 59.759%),

which shows that the four factors are interpretable. The four

components were extracted and named as “Appreciation”,

“Regulate”, “Collaborator” and “Accommodative”. Further, the

number of persons under each component has been identified

and the same is shown in Table 6.

Table 6 Work Environment capability

It can be seen from Table 6 that the “Appreciation” (28.0%) has

been given high preference. “Regulate” the work environment

and “Accommodative” (24.5%) are given equal importance. The

collaborator has given least preference. (23.0%).

The study has further been extended to type of

university and the same is shown in table 7.

Table 7 Work Environment capability Vs Type of University

S. No. Description

Central

University State University Deemed University

No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage

1 Appreciation 1 7.1% 38 27.9% 50 29.8%

2 Regulate 4 28.6% 34 25.0% 40 23.8%

3 Collaborator 4 28.6% 33 24.3% 36 21.4%

4 Accommodative 5 35.7% 31 22.8% 42 25.0%

Total 14 100.0% 136 100.0% 168 100.0%

In the case of Central University, “Accommodate” (35.7%) has

given first preference. “Regulate” and “Collaborator” were given

equal preference (28.6%) by the respondents.

S. No. Description Frequency Percentage

1 Appreciation 89 28.0%

2 Regulate 78 24.5%

3 Collaborator 73 23.0%

4 Accommodative 78 24.5%

Total 318 100.0%





9746

Views on Work Environment

Opinions received from the respondents on the views of Work

Environment in five point scale such as strongly disagree,

disagree, moderate, agree and strongly agree and the same is

shown in Table 8.

Table 8 Views on Work Environment

S.

No Description SD D M A SA

1 opportunity 14 4.4% 13 4.1% 39 12.3% 158 49.7% 94 29.6%

2 learn & grow 14 4.4% 12 3.8% 47 14.8% 156 49.1% 89 28.0%

3 recommend 4 1.3% 20 6.3% 40 12.6% 123 38.7% 131 41.2%

4 confidence 12 3.8% 53 16.7% 51 16.0% 64 20.1% 138 43.4%

5 satisfaction 8 2.5% 25 7.9% 51 16.0% 105 33.0% 129 40.6%

In general, most of the respondents agree with ‘opportunity’

and ‘learn and grow’ and strongly agree for ‘recommend’,

‘confidence’ and ‘satisfaction’ as their views on work

environment.

Further, the responses received from the respondents

about their views on work environment are compared with the

type of the universities where they are working.

Table 9 Views on Work Environment Vs Types of Universities

S.

No

Type of

University Description SD D M A SA

1

Cen

tral

Un

ivers

itie

s opportunity 1 7.1% 0 .0% 1 7.1% 7 50.0% 5 35.7%

2 learn &

grow 0 .0% 1 7.1% 1 7.1% 7 50.0% 5 35.7%

3 recommend 0 .0% 1 7.1% 0 .0% 8 57.1% 5 35.7%

4 confidence 0 .0% 2 14.3% 0 .0% 5 35.7% 7 50.0%

5 satisfaction 0 .0% 1 7.1% 2 14.3% 6 42.9% 5 35.7%

1

Sta

te

Un

ivers

itie

s

opportunity 3 2.2% 8 5.9% 17 12.5% 66 48.5% 42 30.9%

2 learn &

grow 8 5.9% 2 1.5% 21 15.4% 71 52.2% 34 25.0%

3 recommend 3 2.2% 9 6.6% 17 12.5% 55 40.4% 52 38.2%

4 confidence 6 4.4% 25 18.4% 25 18.4% 29 21.3% 51 37.5%





9747

5 satisfaction 4 2.9% 15 11.0% 18 13.2% 40 29.4% 59 43.4%

1

Deem

ed

Un

ivers

itie

s opportunity 10 6.0% 5 3.0% 21 12.5% 85 50.6% 47 28.0%

2 learn &

grow 6 3.6% 9 5.4% 25 14.9% 78 46.4% 50 29.8%

3 recommend 1 .6% 10 6.0% 23 13.7% 60 35.7% 74 44.0%

4 confidence 6 3.6% 26 15.5% 26 15.5% 30 17.9% 80 47.6%

5 satisfaction 4 2.4% 9 5.4% 31 18.5% 59 35.1% 65 38.7%

The Table 9 shows that majority of the respondents belong to

the central universities agree with ‘opportunity’, ‘learn and

grow’, ‘recommend’ ‘satisfaction’ and strongly agree with

‘confidence’ as their views on work environment. In case of the

state and central universities, most of the respondents agree

with ‘opportunity’ and ‘learn and grow’ and strongly agree for

‘recommend’, ‘confidence’ and ‘satisfaction’ as their views on

work environment.

Mean and Standard deviation were calculated for the

opinion received from the respondents and ranks were assigned

based on the mean and standard deviation. The same is shown

in Table 10.

Table 10 Views on Work Environment – Mean, Std., Rank

S.

No Description

Central State Deemed Total

Mean Std Rank Mean Std Rank Mean Std Rank Mean Std Rank

1 Opportunity 4.07 1.07 5 4.00 0.93 2 3.92 1.03 4 3.96 0.99 3

2 Learn & grow 4.14 0.86 3 3.89 0.99 4 3.93 0.99 3 3.92 0.99 4

3 Recommend 4.21 0.80 1 4.06 0.99 1 4.17 0.92 1 4.12 0.94 1

4 Confidence 4.21 1.05 2 3.69 1.27 5 3.90 1.25 5 3.83 1.26 5

5 Satisfaction 4.07 0.92 4 3.99 1.13 3 4.02 1.00 2 4.01 1.05 2

Irrespective of the type of the universities, the respondents

have common opinion that the variable ‘recommend’ is given

the top preference. The respondents in central university

opined ‘recommend’, ‘confidence’, ‘learn’ as the top three

variables and ‘opportunity’ as the least one. In case of state

university, the respondents preferred ‘recommend’,

‘opportunity’ and ‘satisfaction’ as top three views and the

respondents belonging to deemed university have preferred





9748

‘recommend’, satisfaction’ and ‘learn and grow’ as the top three

variables as their views on work environment. The respondents

in both state and deemed universities, in their view, have give

least preference to ‘confidence’.

Conclusion

Changes are inevitable. Technological change has a greater

impact in LIS profession. It is evident that the LIS professional

has to acquaint themselves to ever changing environment in

order to sustain in the profession. The dynamic capabilities

view, by addressing the question of how libraries can cope with

changing environments, has gained increasing attention in the

literature in recent years, not only in the concept’s original

domain (strategic management) but also in many other areas

within administration.

REFERENCE

Amit R, and Schoemaker PJH. (1993). Strategic assets and

organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal,

14(1): 33–46.

Anand, J., Oriani, R., & Vassolo , R. S. 2010. Alliance activity

as a dynamic capability in the face of discontinuous

technological change. Organization Science, 21(6): 1213-

1232.

Clark K B, and Fujimoto T. (1991). Product Development

Performance: Strategy, Organization, and Management

in the World Auto Industry. Harvard Business School

Press: Boston, MA.

Coen and Maritan: Investing in Capabilities: The Dynamics of

Resource allocation, organisation science. 22(1): 99-117

Dixon, S. E. A., Meyer, K. E., and Day, M., (2010), Stages of

organizational transformation in transition economies: A





9749

dynamic capabilities approach. Journal of management

studies, 47(3): 416-436.

Dougherty D. (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product

innovation in large firms. Organization Science 3: 179–

202.

Eisenhardt K M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in

high-velocity environments. Academy of Management

Journal 32(3): 543–576

Eisenhardt K M, and Galunic D C. (2000). Coevolving: at last, a

way to make synergies work. Harvard Business Review

78(1): 91–101.

Eisenhardt K M and Tabrizi B N. (1995). Acceleating adaptive

processes: product innovation in the global computer

industry, Administrative Science Quarterly 40(1):81-

110.

Fredickson J W. (1984). The comprehensiveness of strategic

decision processes: extension, observations and future

directions, Academy of Management Journal 27(3): 445-

467.

Grant R M. (1996). Toward a knowledge –based theory of the

firm Strategic Management Journal, Summer Special

Issue 17: 109-122.

Hansen M T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: the role of

weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization

subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly (March) 44:

82–111.

Hargadon A, and Sutton RI. (1997). Technology brokering and

innovation in a product development firm.

Administrative Science Quarterly 42(4): 716–749.

Helfat C E, and Raubitschek R S. (2000). Product sequencing:

co-evolution of knowledge, capabilities and products.

Strategic Management Journal 21(10–11): 961–979.

Helfat, C. E., S. Finkelstein, W. Mitchell, M. Peteraf, H. Singh,

D. Teece, and S. Winter (2007). Dynamic Capabilities:





9750

Understanding Strategic Change in Organizations.

Blackwell, London.

Henderson R, and Cockburn I. (1994). Measuring competence?

Exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research.

Strategic Management Journal, Winter Special Issue 15:

63–84.

Judge W Q and Miller A. (1991). Antecedents and outcomes of

decision speed in different environments. Academy of

Management Journal 34(2): 449–464

Kale. P. & Singh H. (2007). Building firm capabilities through

learning: The role of the alliance learning process in

alliance capability and success. Strategic Management,

Journal, 28(10): 981-1000.

Kogut B. and Zander U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm,

combinative capabilities and the replication of

technology. Organization Science 3: 383-397.

Pisano G P. (1994). Knowledge, integration, and the locus of

learning: an empirical analysis of process development.

Strategic Management Journal, Winter Special Issue 15:

85–100.

Schilke, O. & Goerzen, A. (2010) Allinace Management

Capability: An Investigation. Allocation Organization

Science, 22(1): 99–117.

Szulanski G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness:

impediments to the transfer of best practice within the

firm. Strategic Management Journal, Winter Special

Issue 17: 27–43.

Teece D J, Pisano G, and Shuen A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities

and strategic management. Strategic Management

Journal 18(7): 509–533.

Winter (2003) Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic

Management Journal, 24(10): 991-995.

Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Davidsson, P. (2006).

Entrepreneurship and Dynamic Capabilities: A Review,





9751

Model and Research Agenda. Journal of Management

Studies, 43(4): 917-955.

work environment and dynamic capability: empirical views...

Documents